Are you sure it isn't three Gods?

[ViaCrucis]

I have not been able to find anywhere in the bible that God refers to Himself as a "person". Is that a New Testament description or is it a Nicean description of God?

Depends on what word is being translated as "person". In the Epistle to the Hebrews Christ is described as the express image of God's hypostasis, which is frequently translated as "glory" or "nature" in most translations I'm familiar with; it's this word which, in the Christological debates of the 4th century, came to be used to describe the Three somethings of the Trinity and which was frequently rendered in Latin by the term "persona" (singular) and "personae" (plural), from which we have the English "person". In Latin the Greek prosopon/prosopa was also rendered as persona/personae. I'm unaware of God being called a prosopon, but that doesn't mean it isn't anywhere in the text, it just means it's not something I'm personally familiar with.

Of course this use of language is largely due to necessity in order to articulate matters of faith in opposition to error. The Christological controversies of the early centuries of Christianity were chiefly done apophatically, by negation, by saying what is not true. The doctrines of Sabellius and the Modalists for example argued that God was one hypostasis and three prosopa, by which they meant God was a single nature/subsistence with three "faces", God was a singular actor wearing different faces depending on from which vantage point one was looking: God was Father when speaking of God in all His glory and majesty, God was Son when in the "face" of Jesus, God was the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and in the lives of His people. There are similarities between this ancient heresy and the modern heresy of "Oneness" as found in some modern Holiness and Pentecostal sects (most famously the United Pentecostal Church) hence frequently the term "Oneness Pentecostalism".

The Council of Nicea and its Creed do not have a description of God per se, rather the council met to specifically address the Christological controversy introduced by the teaching and preaching of Arius of Alexandria, his excommunication from the Church of Alexandria by a local synod of Egyptian bishops under the pastoral leadership of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. The controversy came to a head and led to the convening of a council by the summons of the emperor Constantine in order to hammer out a resolution, which resulted in the Symbol of 325. What was chiefly important about this Symbol was its statement concerning Christ as the Son of God, namely that as Son He is not a creature or a secondary God (as the Arians taught), but that He is the eternal Son of the Father, uncreated, and of the same nature (homoousios) as the Father.

The use of terms like hypostasis and prosopon is largely through the writings of such theological giants as St. Athanasius the Great and the Cappadocian Fathers, Sts. Basil, and the two Gregory's (Nazianzus and of Nyssa), also important on the Western, Latin front was St. Hillary of Poitiers remembered fondly as the "Western Athanasius", and St. Ambrose of Milan and St. Augustine of Hippo would also be influential in the West in articulating the Trinity for the Latin Church.

It is here that the terms ousia, hypostasis, prosopa, etc are more tightly defined for use in communicating the sacred and holy Mystery of the Holy and Blessed Trinity.

But Nicea itself was focused squarely on the Christological controversy introduced by Arius, what was fundamentally at stake was whether the Son was to be regarded as a second God as the Arians taught (heteroousios), or the same God (homoousios), the council fathers almost unanimously came to agree and adopt the formula of homoousios against the Arians and the compromising party who advocated for the formula of homoiousios, that the Son was of a "similar nature". The council fathers in adopting the formula that the Son is homoousios with the Father made clear and plain that Christ is not a second God, a lesser divinity or power, but was Himself truly and actually God even as the Father is God. What the Father is, so is the Son. Several decades later with the controversy of the Pneumatomachoi the Council of Constantinople in 381 both reaffirmed the Symbol of 325 and appended a fuller articulation on the Holy Spirit, that He is "the Lord and Life-Giver, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, and who spoke through the prophets."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ewq1938]

Now you have me confused, so does HEN = 1 in purpose and HEIS = 1 numerically?

No you have it backwards. HEN means one in purpose/essence....like Christians being one in faith and belief.
HEIS means the number 1 like someone owning ONE/HIES car.

Example of "HEN": The town of 5,000 persons got together and worked as "HEN" person to help the Andersons restore their home.

Example of "HEIS": There were 5,000 persons in the stadium, but only "HEIS" person had the name of Bigler.

Do I understand the concept now?

Just switches HEN with HEIS and you got it.

Is HEN used in the scripture?

HEN and HEIS are used in scripture. If you have a specific verse go to biblehub.com, type in verse, then choose interlinear and it will show you which form of the word is used. A lot of words in Greek have two meanings based on how the word is spelled. One spelling or form will be masculine and have a meaning, or it can be spelled differently in the feminine form and has a different meaning. Hebrew has things like this as well. The languages are fascinating for sure.



Here is something I prepared on this:

John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through
their word;
John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also
may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:


Here Christ prays that this group he is praying for to be "one" just as He and his Father are
one. As Christians, we should be as "one" in the same manner as Christ is one with his Father
but this doesnt mean we all are actually one person as well, only one as in of "one mind"...
working as if we are in one spiritual body. The symbolic body of Christ.

We as Christians are one in Christ, so too are the Father and Son one. I will
offer scripture which says we shall be one just as they are one.

John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

"That they all may be one"
"that they also may be one in us"

John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

"that they may be one, even as we are one"


John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

"that they may be one, as we are"


The Father and the Son are setting an example for us:


John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

When comparing scriptures, the idea that Christ was saying that he was the Father, or the Father is him, or that the Father and Son were one person or being fails. He was saying they were one in the same way all Christians are to be one. We (Christians) also are not literally one person, but one of mind and purpose together. we are one in the sense of being parts of the body of Christ.

One group made up of persons, so too is God one God, made up of a Father and His Son and a Holy Spirit.


An example of a singular one composed of many is no further than the bride of Christ. It is written that all the members of the body of Christ should be ONE just as Christ as his Father are ONE. Same exact concept in both situations.

Joh_10:30 I and my Father are one. (more than one united to form a ONE)

Joh_17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

(more than one united to form a ONE)

OT alone it is understandable not to grasp the concept of more than one forming a united ONE but it is painfully clear and direct in the New Testament.


some more verses explaining this oneness further:


Philippians 1:27 Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;

"in one spirit"

"with one mind"

Romans 15:5 Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus:
Romans 15:6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

"likeminded one toward another"
"with one mind and one mouth glorify God"


Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

"ye are all one in Christ"



Christ is one with his Father but he 'isnt' his own Father


1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1 John 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

When this says "these three are one", it is not "one" as in "one person (body)". It is further clarified in the second verse to "agree in one", which means to be "one of mind" not to be "one person (body)".


John 10:30 I and my Father are one.


John 10:30
Egoó kaí ho Pateér hén esmen
1473 2532 9999 3588 3962 1520 2070
I and my Father one are

(Interlinear Transliterated Bible. Copyright (c) 1994 by Biblesoft)



"One. Gr. "hen" Neut., one in essence, not one person which would be "heis", masc. This is the climax of His claim to oneness with The Father in vv. 18, 25, 28, 29. Compare also V. 38; 14:11 Rev 22:3"


According to Bullinger, an accomplished Greek scholar, the word for "one" is "hen" the Neut. form of the word "heis". "heis" means "one" of person but "hen" means "one" in essence and not one person!



John 10:30 I and my Father are one [in essence].

or

John 10:30 I and my Father are [spiritually] one.



This is what Christ said.



Matthew Henry also confirms this:


http://www.ccel.org/h/henry/mhc2/MHC43010.HTM

Further to corroborate the security, that the sheep of Christ may have strong consolation, he asserts the union of these two undertakers: "I and my Father are one, and have jointly and severally undertaken for the protection of the saints and their perfection." This denotes more than the harmony, and consent, and good understanding, that were between the Father and the Son in the work of man's redemption. Every good man is so far one with God as to concur with him; therefore it must be meant of the oneness of the nature of Father and Son, that they are the same in substance, and equal in power and glory. The fathers urged this both against the Sabellians, to prove the distinction and plurality of the persons, that the Father and the Son are two, and against the Arians, to prove the unity of the nature, that these two are one. If we should altogether hold our peace concerning this sense of the words, even the stones which the Jews took up to cast at him would speak it out, for the Jews understood him as hereby making himself God (v. 33) and he did not deny it. He proves that none could pluck them out of his hand because they could not pluck them out of the Father's hand, which had not been a conclusive argument if the Son had not had the same almighty power with the Father, and consequently been one with him in essence and operation.


"the union of these two undertakers"
"therefore it must be meant of the oneness of the nature of Father and Son"
"to prove the distinction and plurality of the persons, that the Father and the Son are two"
"one with him in essence and operation"

Matthew Henry also knew that the greek for "one" was meaning one in essence, not in person as Bullinger also confirmed.



Gill

I and my Father are one. Not in person, for the Father must be a distinct person from the Son, and the Son a distinct person from the Father; and which is further manifest, from the use of the verb plural, "I and my Father", esµe?, "we are one"; that is, in nature and essence, and perfections, particularly in power



Robertson's word pictures:

John 10:30

One (hen). Neuter, not masculine (heis). Not one person (cf. heis in Gal_3:28), but one essence or nature.

 

[ewq1938]

One is male, then other is female.

One begets, the other gives birth.


JLB

No, gender forms in the language has nothing to do with genders of humans or animals.

 

[ewq1938]

He created them, both male and female.

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Genesis 1:26-27

Was Eve created in the image and likeness of God?

All humans have the basic humanoid form and shape so all humans are created in the image and likeness of God.